ADVERTISEMENT

Congrats to my fellow Publix stock holders

Increase of $4.25 a share. One of the largest in history. Such a great story for this employee owned, non Union company.

Thats fantastic. Everyone in that organization deserves it, Publix is a world class company. How’s you get in on shares?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sir Galahad
I’ll take the bait. Please elaborate on what’s wrong with shareholders rejoicing
You're probably on his ignore list so he won't see your question. Let me respond for him:

Inbred, incel, idiots that are too dumb to know how stupid they are and 85 supports priests raping kids.

I think that pretty much sums up everything that doucheninja has ever posted.
 
Employee owned companies are good. Its a major part of the democratic platform to increase the number of companies like that. When Bernie Sanders was pushing for it, everyone called it socialism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hemightbejeremy
Employee owned companies are good. Its a major part of the democratic platform to increase the number of companies like that. When Bernie Sanders was pushing for it, everyone called it socialism.

Remember when you thought that Cooperative corporations weren’t privately owned or a corporation? [roll]

And what the hell are you talking about? Bernie wanted to forcibly and unconstitutionally involve himself as President in the matter of stock allocation in publicly traded companies. That is dumb and dangerous. He was not out there hoping for more Publix’s since (GASP) a lot of people get rich off Publix.
 
Remember when you thought that Cooperative corporations weren’t privately owned or a corporation? [roll]

And what the hell are you talking about? Bernie wanted to forcibly and unconstitutionally involve himself as President in the matter of stock allocation in publicly traded companies. That is dumb and dangerous. He was not out there hoping for more Publix’s since (GASP) a lot of people get rich off Publix.
What? No i didnt.

Honestly im going to chalk this up as an interpretation of a post where im discussing something at a level you arent knowledgeable about.
 
What? No i didnt.

Honestly im going to chalk this up as an interpretation of a post where im discussing something at a level you arent knowledgeable about.

Yes you literally did. You were responding to Crazy’s post about his cooperative insurance company and inserted this gem. We informed you this is totally wrong and you exited the thread.


It's a nonprofit co-op. That's not private that is membership owned.
 
Nonprofits are not privately owned, they have a director but no ownership. A co-op is membership based org, where ownership not only doesnt exist but also it's not private since anyone can join the co-op. The world of business classifications is bigger than just private vs public unless you are just talking about shares of stock in which case nonprofits have none so that conversation wouldn't make sense to have here.

Read about it
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/private-vs-public-company/
 
Honestly im going to chalk this up as an interpretation of a post where im discussing something at a level you arent knowledgeable about.

Ding ding ding. You thought i was having a conversation of privately owned business in regards to if the government owned the business or not?

In the United States that's basically non-existent.

Why would someone be discussing that vs the much more common publicly traded vs private ownership of business?
 
lmao

BLUF: FC schools 85 in this (and every other) thread. This is beyond embarrassing at this point.
 
Yea, companies owned by employees are pretty awesome, because they aren't nickel and diming their employees and screwing them over, just to make a few extra bucks for their rich shareholders. It is amazing what a little support for ordinary workers will do, huh?
 
Not everyone is a rich shareholder. You invest in a 401k or IRA?

Of course. But investors like you and I are a mere drop in the bucket. We hold very little wealth, so you really shouldn't believe they are doing you favors by using your labor to do them favors.
 
Nonprofits are not privately owned, they have a director but no ownership. A co-op is membership based org, where ownership not only doesnt exist but also it's not private since anyone can join the co-op. The world of business classifications is bigger than just private vs public unless you are just talking about shares of stock in which case nonprofits have none so that conversation wouldn't make sense to have here.

Read about it
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/private-vs-public-company/

Jesus dude, just admit when you have things add backwards ok? Private vs public is really easy to understand with clear lines. Maybe just stick to repeating dumb stuff from Socialism Today.

http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/cooperatives/what_is/

A Co Op absolutely is private and absolutely has ownership amongst its members.

A cooperative is a private business organization that is owned and controlled by the people who use its products, supplies or services
 
Instead of worrying about the so called evil rich. What has been your strategy to become one? I'm a clear product of capitalism. College grad but never top of my class. I out worked my coworkers at every job. On the weekends sometimes I'll study to learn more about my job and get more certifications. I'm now to the point where I have no bills. I own $250k in one stock alone as an example. That isn't to brag and I would never say this in person. Just to show you it's possible.

The goal of a business is to create shareholder value. Part of having a successful business is taking care of employees. If you're talking about jobs that can be replaced immediately without much training, it is up to the individual to form a path to success.

Some people sit at bars all weekend wondering why they aren't successful. Usually it involves a lot of work over a decent amount of time.

Its impossible for liberals and socialists to just tend to their own personal well being and generate wealth and be happy in life .

They are obsessed with anyone perceived to be making more than them and turn that obsession into a blanketed opinion that the mere existence of very rich shareholders means that stocks are inherently bad and were all just poor little saps being taken advantage of.
 
Employee owned companies are good. Its a major part of the democratic platform to increase the number of companies like that. When Bernie Sanders was pushing for it, everyone called it socialism.
Except you’re wrong, Bernie and his mafia would try to unionize Publix. There is a reason Publix has destroyed their competition, their unionized competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
This quote could not be more true

“Middle class socialists don’t like the poor, they just hate the rich”
 
Imagine bragging about your stock going up a few percent when the fed is about to figuratively run out of ink from printing so much money.

Gold, silver, BTC, stocks, ammo. Everything doubling in price during this pandemic. Inflation is going through the roof. We could not have handled this worse from a medical or financial standpoint.
 
Imagine bragging about your stock going up a few percent when the fed is about to figuratively run out of ink from printing so much money.

Gold, silver, BTC, stocks, ammo. Everything doubling in price during this pandemic. Inflation is going through the roof. We could not have handled this worse from a medical or financial standpoint.
Crood logic. Obviously, you’re aren’t very ambitious or wealthy. Shocking
 
Imagine bragging about your stock going up a few percent when the fed is about to figuratively run out of ink from printing so much money.

Gold, silver, BTC, stocks, ammo. Everything doubling in price during this pandemic. Inflation is going through the roof. We could not have handled this worse from a medical or financial standpoint.
So now you aren't a fan of stimulus or MMT? If it had been a black Democrat in the white house doing the exact same stuff you'd be praising their leadership.
 
Except you’re wrong, Bernie and his mafia would try to unionize Publix. There is a reason Publix has destroyed their competition, their unionized competition.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ Right from Bernies webpage, "We will give workers an ownership stake in the companies they work for, break up corrupt corporate mergers and monopolies, and finally make corporations pay their fair share."

Also, Kroger is mostly unionized and a much richer and larger national chain than Publix. Publix might destroy the competition in Florida, but Kroger destroys the competition nationally and even globally. Unions and employee owned businesses actually have a lot in common (and some differences too for sure), it is a different set up but the goals are typically pretty similar. But most progressives are more than ok with employee owned businesses and it is certainly a progressive position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ Right from Bernies webpage, "We will give workers an ownership stake in the companies they work for, break up corrupt corporate mergers and monopolies, and finally make corporations pay their fair share."

Also, Kroger is mostly unionized and a much richer and larger national chain than Publix. Publix might destroy the competition in Florida, but Kroger destroys the competition nationally and even globally. Unions and employee owned businesses actually have a lot in common (and some differences too for sure), it is a different set up but the goals are typically pretty similar. But most progressives are more than ok with employee owned businesses and it is certainly a progressive position.

It’s again cute that socialists think that they can involve the government to meddle in private affairs of business where the government has no authority or right to do so.

Also a unionized workforce is not the same as an employee based company and their objectives really aren’t that similar. Publix issues ownership to employers to encourage loyalty and to drive the best performance of their employees, since the better they perform and earn promotions, the larger their ownership stake becomes. They want employees who feel personally empowered to get ahead and develop managers from within.

Unions could not be more different. A highly paid union mob boss negotiates for everything a worker gets and that’s it. Promotions are based upon who is next in line on the union map , not who deserves it the most. Working far harder and more efficient than your colleague? Too bad. You’re getting paid the same since that’s what the union agreed you to on your behalf.
 
Only a socialist that hasn't worked a real job comes up with this plan. So exactly how are you going to steal assets from owners to provide to employees? These owners are everyone down to 401k participants, retail stock owners, etc. So you're going to dilute their shares. How do you decide how many shares you will steal? Is it secondary offerings to dilute existing shareholders? Part time workers and lower skilled workers get the same as full time or management?

Only Bernie can come up with a stupid plan like this. Anyone can buy stock in a public company. Now no fee trades even exist.

"Fair Share" is code word for I'm coming to steal from the productive. Bernie isn't giving up his money though.

Read the thread before responding. I was pointing out to Sir Gallahad who said that Bernie wasnt for employee ownership, when right on his website it shows that he is. Bernie would like how Publix is set up.
 
It’s again cute that socialists think that they can involve the government to meddle in private affairs of business where the government has no authority or right to do so.

Also a unionized workforce is not the same as an employee based company and their objectives really aren’t that similar. Publix issues ownership to employers to encourage loyalty and to drive the best performance of their employees, since the better they perform and earn promotions, the larger their ownership stake becomes. They want employees who feel personally empowered to get ahead and develop managers from within.

Unions could not be more different. A highly paid union mob boss negotiates for everything a worker gets and that’s it. Promotions are based upon who is next in line on the union map , not who deserves it the most. Working far harder and more efficient than your colleague? Too bad. You’re getting paid the same since that’s what the union agreed you to on your behalf.

The government is constantly involved with businesses, and we have many laws on the books that deal with business. We just had hearings this week where congress grilled 4 of the heads of some of the largest companies in the world.
 
The government is constantly involved with businesses, and we have many laws on the books that deal with business. We just had hearings this week where congress grilled 4 of the heads of some of the largest companies in the world.

Ok? That is in no way the same as the government forcibly compelling private corporations to change their ownership structure. If a company is a sole ownership or limited partnership, Bernie Bro’s can’t just run in and force them to divide ownership between all of their employees. Even suggesting this is proof of how dangerous that lunatic and his policies would be if ever actually enacted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ Right from Bernies webpage, "We will give workers an ownership stake in the companies they work for, break up corrupt corporate mergers and monopolies, and finally make corporations pay their fair share."

Also, Kroger is mostly unionized and a much richer and larger national chain than Publix. Publix might destroy the competition in Florida, but Kroger destroys the competition nationally and even globally. Unions and employee owned businesses actually have a lot in common (and some differences too for sure), it is a different set up but the goals are typically pretty similar. But most progressives are more than ok with employee owned businesses and it is certainly a progressive position.

So are the employees free to sell their shares and still be an employee? If so, rich investors will just buy up the stock and we'll end up right back where we started.
 
"Socialist socialist socialist, socialist socialist. Socialist socialist commie socialism. Socialist socialist, socialist. Venezuela socialist socialist socialist, socialism socialist communism Cuba. Socialist socialist socialist Marx." - Idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
Back to the topic at hand, enjoy the extra value while you can. The Marxist will take over soon and ALL private ownership will end.
 
Back to the topic at hand, enjoy the extra value while you can. The Marxist will take over soon and ALL private ownership will end.
Beware the ‘Marxist Boogieman’ has become the latest way to comfortably spew racist bullshit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
Beware the ‘Marxist Boogieman’ has come the latest way to comfortably to spew racist bullshit.

Not really. Mostly just when listening to socialists hail plans to mandate the Government to forcibly change the ownership structure of private companies under the guise of worker revolution or something; then it's time to start dinging Marxism and the dolts championing/supporting such ideas.
 
I think most reasonable people can agree that if we laid out all the pro's and con's, an ownership structure that makes a real attempt to include the employees is probably a better long term and sustainable structure for a functioning society. The whole debate should be about how to incentivize this or change hearts and minds to think bigger picture and actually believe in a potentially better way of doing this. But that needs to be done through choice. How could it possibly work if the gov were to try and step in there? Play that scenario out... how does it end any better than our current path?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
I think most reasonable people can agree that if we laid out all the pro's and con's, an ownership structure that makes a real attempt to include the employees is probably a better long term and sustainable structure for a functioning society. The whole debate should be about how to incentivize this or change hearts and minds to think bigger picture and actually believe in a potentially better way of doing this. But that needs to be done through choice. How could it possibly work if the gov were to try and step in there? Play that scenario out... how does it end any better than our current path?

Every business owner understands this, and its why better employees get raises, bonuses, stock options, benefits, etc. Employee ownership is generally impractical but there are times that it can and does work. Forcing it upon companies would lead to almost immediate collapse for many.
 
Every business owner understands this, and its why better employees get raises, bonuses, stock options, benefits, etc.

Like with all things, I could def make an argument that there is a wide ranging disparity of business owners that really understand and implement this. But yes the point is to continue to bridge that out of choice, not legal mandate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
Every business owner understands this, and its why better employees get raises, bonuses, stock options, benefits, etc. Employee ownership is generally impractical but there are times that it can and does work. Forcing it upon companies would lead to almost immediate collapse for many.

Raises and bonuses are good for retaining good employees but this is not deriving ownership. This is compensation for employment.

I think it's important to remember that most small businesses are born from a person or a small group of people taking an enormous personal risk to pull together the funds, business plan, permits, licenses, patents, premises, facilities, etc etc etc to start a business. It's easy to say that employees should just naturally have an ownership stake when employees take none of the risk to form a business, but that's not realistic. It also doesn't consider the prospect of the business failing and having to settle with creditors.

Rewarding employees for good work is something every owner should do, but it's a bit simplistic to say that a business owner should bring every employee in on ownership when employees have absolutely nothing at risk within the business. If the business folded tomorrow they're only out a paycheck, not their life savings. This is why it's often not done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
Raises and bonuses are good for retaining good employees but this is not deriving ownership. This is compensation for employment.

I think it's important to remember that most small businesses are born from a person or a small group of people taking an enormous personal risk to pull together the funds, business plan, permits, licenses, patents, premises, facilities, etc etc etc to start a business. It's easy to say that employees should just naturally have an ownership stake when employees take none of the risk to form a business, but that's not realistic. It also doesn't consider the prospect of the business failing and having to settle with creditors.

Rewarding employees for good work is something every owner should do, but it's a bit simplistic to say that a business owner should bring every employee in on ownership when employees have absolutely nothing at risk within the business. If the business folded tomorrow they're only out a paycheck, not their life savings. This is why it's often not done.

100% agree, and its kind of shocking that we are even having this discussion. Show me a single company that started by being employee owned. Sure, some have evolved into that business model but none start that way.
 
ADVERTISEMENT